Breast cancer is by far the most common form of cancer in women, and is the second leading cause of cancer death in humans. Despite many recent advances in diagnosing and treating breast cancer, the prevalence of this disease has been steadily rising at a rate of about 1% per year since 1940. Today, the likelihood that a women living in North America will develop breast cancer during her lifetime is one in eight.
The current widespread use of mammography has resulted in improved detection of breast cancer. Nonetheless, the death rate due to breast cancer has remained unchanged at about 27 deaths per 100,000 women. All too often, breast cancer is discovered at a stage that is too far advanced, when therapeutic options and survival rates are severely limited. Accordingly, more sensitive and reliable methods are needed to detect small (less than 2 cm diameter), early stage, in situ carcinomas of the breast. Such methods should significantly improve breast cancer survival, as suggested by the successful employment of Papinicolou smears for early detection and treatment of cervical cancer.
In addition to the problem of early detection, there remain serious problems in distinguishing between malignant and benign breast disease, in staging known breast cancers, and in differentiating between different types of breast cancers (eg. estrogen dependent versus non-estrogen dependent tumors). Recent efforts to develop improved methods for breast cancer detection, staging and classification have focused on a promising array of so-called cancer “markers.” Cancer markers are typically proteins that are uniquely expressed (eg. as a cell surface or secreted protein) by cancerous cells, or are expressed at measurably increased or decreased levels by cancerous cells compared to normal cells. Other cancer markers can include specific DNA or RNA sequences marking deleterious genetic changes or alterations in the patterns or levels of gene expression associated with particular forms of cancer.
A large number and variety of breast cancer markers have been identified to date, and many of these have been shown to have important value for determining prognostic and/or treatment-related variables. Prognostic variables are those variables that serve to predict disease outcome, such as the likelihood or timing of relapse or survival. Treatment-related variables predict the likelihood of success or failure of a given therapeutic plan. Certain breast cancer markers clearly serve both functions. For example, estrogen receptor levels are predictive of relapse and survival for breast cancer patients, independent of treatment, and are also predictive of responsiveness to endocrine therapy. Pertschuk et al., Cancer 66: 1663–1670, 1990; Parl and Posey, Hum. Pathol. 19: 960–966, 1988; Kinsel et al., Cancer Res. 49: 1052–1056, 1989; Anderson and Poulson Cancer 65: 1901–1908, 1989.
The utility of specific breast cancer markers for screening and diagnosis, staging and classification, monitoring and/or therapy purposes depends on the nature and activity of the marker in question. For general reviews of breast cancer markers, see Porter-Jordan et al., Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Amer. 8: 73–100, 1994; and Greiner, Pharmaceutical Tech., May, 1993, pp. 28–44. As reflected in these reviews, a primary focus for developing breast cancer markers has centered on the overlapping areas of tumorigenesis, tumor growth and cancer invasion. Tumorigenesis and tumor growth can be assessed using a variety of cell proliferation markers (for example Ki67, cyclin D1 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)), some of which may be important oncogenes as well. Tumor growth can also be evaluated using a variety of growth factor and hormone markers (for example estrogen, epidermal growth factor (EGF), erbB-2, transforming growth factor (TGF), which may be overexpressed, underexpressed or exhibit altered activity in cancer cells. By the same token, receptors of autocrine or exocrine growth factors and hormones (for example insulin growth factor (IGF) receptors, and EGF receptor) may also exhibit changes in expression or activity associated with tumor growth. Lastly, tumor growth is supported by angiogenesis involving the elaboration and growth of new blood vessels and the concomitant expression of angiogenic factors that can serve as markers for tumorigenesis and tumor growth.
In addition to tumorigenic, proliferation and growth markers, a number of markers have been identified that can serve as indicators of invasiveness and/or metastatic potential in a population of cancer cells. These markers generally reflect altered interactions between cancer cells and their surrounding microenvironment. For example, when cancer cells invade or metastasize, detectable changes may occur in the expression or activity of cell adhesion or motility factors, examples of which include the cancer markers Cathepsin D, plasminogen activators, collagenases and other factors. In addition, decreased expression or overexpression of several putative tumor “suppressor” genes (for example nm23, p53 and rb) has been directly associated with increased metastatic potential or deregulation of growth predictive of poor disease outcome.
Additional representative breast disease markers within these various classes include prostaglandin E2 (PGE2); estrogen-regulated proteins such as pS2; interleukins (eg., IL-10); S-100 protein; vimentin; epithelial membrane antigen; prostate specific antigen (PSA); bcl-2; CA15-3 (an aberrant form of polymorphic epithelial mucin (PEM)); CA 19-9; mucin core carbohydrates (eg., Tn antigen and Tn-like antigens); alpha-lactalbumin; lipid-associated sialic acid (LASA); galactose-N-acetylgalactosamine (Gal-GalNAC); GCDFP-15; Le(y)-related carbohydrate antigen; CA 125; urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and uPA related antigens and complexes (eg., LMW-uPA, HMW-uPA, uPA aminoterminal fragment (ATF), uPA receptor (uPAR) and complexes with inhibitors such as PAl-1 and PAl-2); beta-glucuronidase; CD31; CD44 splice variants; blood group antigens (eg., ABH, Lewis, and MN); and genetic lesions or altered expression levels of CCND1, EMS1, BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
In summary, the evaluation of proliferation markers, oncogenes, growth factors and growth factor receptors, angiogenic factors, proteases, adhesion factors and tumor suppressor genes, among other cancer markers, can provide important information concerning the risk, presence, status or future behavior of cancer in a patient. Determining the presence or level of expression or activity of one or more of these cancer markers can aid in the differential diagnosis of patients with uncertain clinical abnormalities, for example by distinguishing malignant from benign abnormalities. Furthermore, in patients presenting with established malignancy, cancer markers can be useful to predict the risk of future relapse, or the likelihood of response in a particular patient to a selected therapeutic course. Even more specific information can be obtained by analyzing highly specific cancer markers, or combinations of markers, which may predict responsiveness of a patient to specific drugs or treatment options.
Methods for detecting and measuring cancer markers have been recently revolutionized by the development of immunological assays, particularly by assays that utilize monoclonal antibody technology. Previously, many cancer markers could only be detected or measured using conventional biochemical assay methods, which generally require large test samples and are therefore unsuitable in most clinical applications. In contrast, modern immunoassay techniques can detect and measure cancer markers in relatively much smaller samples, particularly when monoclonal antibodies that specifically recognize a targeted marker protein are used. Accordingly, it is now routine to assay for the presence or absence, level, or activity of selected cancer markers by immunohistochemically staining breast tissue specimens obtained via conventional biopsy methods. Because of the highly sensitive nature of immunohistochemical staining, these methods have also been successfully employed to detect and measure cancer markers in smaller, needle biopsy specimens which require less invasive sample gathering procedures compared to conventional biopsy specimens. In addition, other immunological methods have been developed and are now well known in the art which allow for detection and measurement of cancer markers in non-cellular samples such as serum and other biological fluids from patients. The use of these alternative sample sources substantially reduces the morbidity and costs of assays compared to procedures employing conventional biopsy samples, which allows for application of cancer marker assays in early screening and low risk monitoring programs where invasive biopsy procedures are not indicated.
For the purpose of breast cancer evaluation, the use of conventional or needle biopsy samples for cancer marker assays is often undesirable, because a primary goal of such assays is to detect the cancer before it progresses to a palpable or mammographically detectable tumor stage. Prior to this stage, biopsies are generally contraindicated, making early screening and low risk monitoring procedures employing such samples untenable. Therefore, there is general need in the art to obtain samples for breast cancer marker assays by less invasive means than biopsy, for example by serum withdrawal.
Efforts to utilize serum samples for breast cancer marker assays have met with limited success, largely because the targeted markers are either not detectable in serum, or because telltale changes in the levels or activity of the markers cannot be monitored in serum. In addition, the presence of breast cancer markers in serum probably occurs at the time of micro-metastasis, making serum assays less useful for detecting pre-metastatic disease. In contrast, fluid within the mammary glands themselves is expected to contain much higher and more biologically relevant levels of breast cancer markers than serum, particularly in view of the fact that 80%–90% of all breast cancers occur within the intraductal epithelium of these glands. Fluid within the breast ducts is expected to contain an assemblage and concentration of hormones, growth factors and other potential markers comparable to those secreted by, or acting upon, the surrounding cells of the alveolar-ductal system. Likewise, mammary fluid is expected to contain cells and solid cellular-debris or products that can be used in cytological or immunological assays to evaluate intracellular or cell surface markers that may not be detectable in the liquid fraction of mammary fluid.
Previous attempts to develop non-invasive breast cancer marker assays utilizing mammary fluid samples have included studies of mammary fluid obtained from patients presenting with spontaneous nipple discharge. In one of these studies, conducted by Inaji et al., Cancer 60: 3008–3013, 1987, levels of the breast cancer marker carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were measured using conventional, enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) and sandwich-type, monoclonal immunoassay methods. These methods successfully and reproducibly demonstrated that CEA levels in spontaneously discharged mammary fluid provide a sensitive indicator of nonpalpable breast cancer. In a subsequent study, also by Inaji et al., Jpn. J. clin. Oncol. 19: 373–379, 1989, these results were expanded using a more sensitive, dry chemistry, dot-immunobinding assay for CEA determination. This latter study reported that elevated CEA levels occurred in 43% of patients tested with palpable breast tumors, and in 73% of patients tested with nonpalpable breast tumors. CEA levels in the discharged mammary fluid were highly correlated with intratumoral CEA levels, indicating that the level of CEA expression by breast cancer cells is closely reflected in the mammary fluid CEA content. Based on these results, the authors concluded that immunoassays for CEA in spontaneously discharged mammary fluid are useful for screening nonpalpable breast cancer.
Although the evaluation of mammary fluid has been shown to be a useful method for screening nonpalpable breast cancer in women who experience spontaneous nipple discharge, the rarity of this condition renders the methods of Inaji et al, inapplicable to the majority of women who are candidates for early breast cancer screening. In addition, the first Inaji report cited above determined that certain patients suffering spontaneous nipple discharge secrete less than 10 μl of mammary fluid, which is a critically low level for the ELISA and sandwich immunoassays employed in that study. It is likely that other antibodies used to assay other cancer markers may exhibit even lower sensitivity than the anti-CEA antibodies used by Inaji and coworkers, and may therefore not be adaptable or sensitive enough to be employed even in dry chemical immunoassays of small samples of spontaneously discharged mammary fluid.
In view of the above, an important need exists in the art for more widely applicable, non-invasive methods and materials to obtain biological samples for use in evaluating, diagnosing and managing breast disease including cancer, particularly for screening early stage, nonpalpable breast tumors. A related need exists-for methods and materials that utilize such readily obtained biological samples to evaluate, diagnose and manage breast disease, particularly by detecting or measuring selected breast cancer markers, or panels of breast cancer markers, to provide highly specific, cancer prognostic and/or treatment-related information, and to diagnose and manage pre-cancerous conditions, cancer susceptibility, breast infections and other breast diseases.